booking

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the cancellation refund schedule (full refund, 50%, none) and the requirement for the guest email. It does not mention potential side effects or idempotency, but the disclosed traits are significant.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two short, front-loaded sentences that convey essential information without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the cancellation policy and required email. It could mention that the booking must exist, but the information provided is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 2 parameters with partial description (guest_email has pattern and description; id lacks description). The description adds some meaning by stating the guest email requirement but provides little beyond the schema. With 50% schema description coverage, the description does not fully compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and resource ('Wanaka Haus booking') using a specific verb plus resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_booking or get_booking by focusing on cancellation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit context on when to use the tool (under the published policy with a detailed refund schedule) and a prerequisite (requires guest email). However, it does not include when not to use the tool or explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the atomic hold for 30 minutes, the return of a Stripe Checkout URL, and that confirmation occurs only after payment. It also notes that no account or API key is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, efficiently conveying purpose, behavior, and usage. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (booking with payment integration), the description covers key aspects: hold duration, checkout URL, payment requirement, and autonomy. No output schema exists, but the description explains the return value. The omission of cancellation or failure handling is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not add significant meaning beyond the input schema. Schema covers 4 of 6 parameters with descriptions; the description refrains from elaborating further. The overall process is clear, but parameter-level guidance is minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to book Wanaka Haus by atomically holding dates and returning a Stripe Checkout URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_availability and cancel_booking by focusing on the booking action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool (to create a booking) and provides guidance on the next steps (give URL to user for payment or use agent wallet). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. It only lists possible statuses without additional context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It earns its place but could be more informative without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., full booking object or just status string). It only lists possible statuses, leaving ambiguity about the response format. Incomplete for a simple retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the 'id' parameter is well documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it retrieves the status of a specific booking and lists possible statuses. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_booking or create_booking which perform different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quote or search_availability. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses validation of stay rules and date checks, but does not mention side effects (none expected), error handling on failed validation, or idempotency. Describes core behavior but lacks full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function ('Itemised NZD total'), followed by secondary validation info. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, so description should explain return value. It mentions 'Itemised NZD total' but does not detail the structure (e.g., breakdown by nights, extra fees). Missing potential prerequisites like property ID (implicitly Wanaka Haus). Adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The tool description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, such as the meaning of 'guests' or the date format validation behavior. Fails to compensate for the incomplete schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides an 'Itemised NZD total for a stay at Wanaka Haus' and differentiates itself from siblings by noting it validates rules and checks availability 'before you commit to a booking.' This distinguishes it from create_booking and search_availability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use before booking to validate stay rules and pricing. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context of siblings (e.g., search_availability) creates implicit differentiation. A more explicit when-not-to-use or alternative reference would push to 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the date window constraint (up to 18 months) and clarifies the inclusive/exclusive boundary for check-in/check-out. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only or has any side effects, but the content strongly implies a safe query operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences without any filler. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a critical clarification. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description does not detail return format. However, it does state it returns 'open and booked nights', which is sufficient for a simple availability lookup. It could mention maximum range or pagination but is reasonably complete for the complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by clarifying that ranges are 'check-in inclusive, check-out exclusive', which is not obvious from the schema alone. It also confirms the defaults (today and 18 months out) that are already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool retrieves 'open and booked nights' for a specific property ('Wanaka Haus') within a date window, up to 18 months ahead. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (cancel_booking, create_booking, etc.) which manage bookings rather than querying availability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for checking availability before creating a booking. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context and sibling tool names make the intended use clear. It could benefit from an explicit note, but it's adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.